Socialism and War

The Attitude of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party Towards the War

Chapter III

The Restoration of the International

Howshould the International be restored? But first, a few words about how

the Internationalshould notbe restored.

The method of the social-chauvinists and of the

“centre”

Oh,the social-chauvinists of all countries are big

“internationalists”! Since the very beginning of the war they

have been burdened with care for the International. On the one hand, they

assure us that thetalk about thecollapseof the International is

“exaggerated.” Actually, nothing exceptional has occurred.

Listen to Kautsky: simply, the International is a “peacetime

instrument”; naturally, this instrument was found to be somewhat not

up to the mark in wartime. On the other hand, the social-chauvinists of all

countries have found a very simple—and chiefly, an international

– way out of the situation that has arisen. A simple way out: it is

only necessary to wait until the war ends; but until the war ends the

Socialists of each country must defend their fatherland and support

“their” government; when the war ends—mutual

“amnesty,” admission thateverybodywas right, that in

peacetime we live like brothers, but in wartime we—on the basis of

such and such resolutions—call upon the German workers to

exterminate their French brothers, and vice versa.

Onthis Kautsky and Plekhanov and Victor Adler and Heine are equally

agreed. Victor Adler writes that “when we have passed through this

hard time, our first duty will be to refrain from pointing to the mote in

each other’s eye.” Kautsky asserts that “up till now no

voices of serious Socialists have been heard from any side that rouse

apprehensions” concerning the fate of the International. Plekhanov

says that “it is unpleasant to grasp the hands” (of the German

Social-Democrats) “that reek of the blood of the innocently

killed.” But he at once goes on to propose an “amnesty”:

“here it will be quite appropriate,” he writes, “to

subordinatethe heart to the mind. For the sake of the great

cause, the International will have to take into consideration even belated

remorse.” Heine inSozialistische Monatsheftedescribes Vandervelde’s behaviour as “courageous and

proud,” and sets him up—an example for the German Lefts.

Inshort, when the war ends, appoint a commission consisting of Kautsky

and Plekhanov, Vandervelde and Adler and a “unanimous”

resolution in the spirit of mutual amnesty will be drawn up in a trice. The

dispute will be safely covered up. Instead of helping the workers to

understand what has occurred, they will deceive them with sham, paper

“unity.” The amalgamation of the social-chauvinists and

hypocrites of all countries will be described as the restoration of the

International.

Wemust not conceal from ourselves the fact that the danger of such a

“restoration is very great. The social-chauvinists of all countries

are equally interested in it.” All of them are equally unwilling that the

masses of the workers themselves should try to grasp the issue: Socialismornationalism? All of them are equally interested in coveting up

each other’s sins. None of them is able to propose anything except

what is proposed by that virtuoso in “international” hypocrisy,

Kautsky.

Andyet, this danger is scarcely realised. During the year of war we

have witnessed a number of attempts to restore international connections.

We will not speak of the conferences in London and Vienna, at which

downright chauvinists assembled to help the General Staffs and the

bourgeoisie of their “fatherlands.” We have in mind the

conferences in

Lugano[1]and

Copenhagen,[2]the International Women’s Conference[3]and the International Youth

Conference.[4]These

assemblies were inspired by the best wishes. But they totally failed to see

the above-mentioned danger. They did not lay down a fighting line for

internationalists. They did not point out to the proletariat the danger

that threatens it from the social-chauvinists’ method of

“restoring” the International. At best, they confined

themselves to repeating the old resolutions without indicating to the

workers that unless a struggle is waged against the social-chauvinists, the

cause of Socialism is hopeless. At best theymarked time.

The state of affairs among the opposition

Therecan be no doubt whatever that what interests all

internationalists most is the state of affairs among the German

Social-Democratic opposition. Official German Social-Democracy, which was

the strongest and the leading party in the Second International, struck the

heaviest blow at the international workers’ organisation. But at the

same time, it was in German Social-Democracy that the strongest opposition

was found. Of all the big European parties, it was in the German party that

the loud voice of protest of the comrades who have remained loyal to the

banner of Socialism was first raised. It was with joy that we readthe magazinesLichtstrahlenandDie

Internationale. With still greater joy we learned of the

distribution in Germany of secretly printed manifestoes, as for example the

manifesto entitled:The Chief Enemy Is at Home. This showed that

the spirit of Socialism is alive among the German workers, That there are

still people in Germany capable of upholding revolutionary Marxism.

Thesplit in the present-day socialist movement has been most strikingly

revealed within German Social-Democracy. Here we very distinctly see three

trends: the opportunist-chauvinists, who have nowhere sunk to such a degree

of renegacy as they have in Germany; the Kautskyan “Centre,”

which has here proved to be incapable of playing any other role than that

of servitors of the opportunists; and the Left—who are the only

Social-Democrats in Germany.

Naturally,what interests us most of all is the state of affairs among

the German Left. In it we see our comrades, the hope of all the

internationalist elements.

Whatis the state of affairs in it?

ThemagazineDie Internationalewas quite right when

it wrote that the German Left was still in a state of ferment, that

considerable regroupings still lie ahead in it, that there are more

resolute and less resolute elements within it.

WeRussian internationalists do not in the least, of course, claim the

right to interfere in the internal affairs of our comrades the German

Lefts. We are aware that they alone are fully competent to determine their

methods of fighting the opportunists in conformity with the conditions of

time and place. Only, we deem it our right and duty frankly to express our

opinion on the state of affairs.

Weare convinced that the author of the leading article in the magazineDie Internationalewas profoundly right when he asserted

that the Kautskyan “Centre” is doing more harm to Marxism than

avowed social-chauvinism. Whoever now obscures disagreements, whoever now,

in the guise of Marxism, preaches to the workers what Kautskyism is

preaching, is lulling the workers, is more harmful than the Südekums

and Heines, who put the questionbluntly and compel the workers to try to

grasp the issue.

Thefact that Kautsky and Haase are permitting themselves lately to

demur against the “official bodies” should mislead nobody. The

disagreements between them and the Scheidemanns are not on fundamentals.

The former believe that Hindenburg and Mackensen arealreadyvictorious and that they can already permit themselves the luxury of

protesting against annexations. The latter believe that Hindenburg and

Mackensen are notyetvictorious and that, therefore, it is

necessary “to bold out to the end.”

Kautskyismis waging only a sham fight against the “official

bodies” precisely in order to be able, after the war, to obscure the

fundamental dispute for the workers and to gloss the matter over with the

1,001st puffy resolution couched in a vaguely “Leftist” spirit,

in the drafting of which the diplomats of the Second International are such

masters.

Itis quite understandable that in their arduous struggle against the

“official bodies” the German opposition should also make use of

this unprincipled opposition raised by Kautskyism. But what must remain the

touchstone for every interntionalist is hostility towards

neo-Kautskyism. Only he is a genuine internationalist who fights

Kautskyism, who understands that, fundamentally, the “Centre,”even afterthe sham turn taken by its leaders, remains anally

of the chauvinists and opportunists.

Ofenormous importance is our attitude towards the wavering elements in

the International in general. These elements—mainly Socialists of

thepacifistshade—are to be found both in the neutral

countries and in some of the belligerent countries (in England, for

example, the Independent Labour

Party).[5]These elements can be our fellow

travellers. Rapprochement with them in opposition to the social-chauvinists

is necessary. But it must be borne in mind that they areonlyfellow travellers, that on the chief and fundamental issues, with the

restoration of the International, these elements will go not with us, but

against us, they will go with Kautsky, Scheidemann, Vandervelde and Sembat.

At international conferences we must not limit our programme to what is

acceptable to these elements. If we do, we will become the captives of thewavering pacifists. This is what happened, for example, at the

International Women’s Conference in Berne. The German delegation,

which supported Comrade Clara Zetkin’s point of view, actually played

the part of the “Centre” at this conference. The Women’s

Conference said only what was acceptable to the delegates from the

opportunist Dutch party led by Troelstra, and to the delegates of the

Independent Labour Party, which—we will not forget this—at

the London conference of “Entente” chauvinists voted for

Vandervelde’s resolution. We express our greatest respect for the

I.L.P. for the brave struggle it has been waging against the British

government during the war. But we know that this party has not adopted the

Marxist stand. We, however, are of the opinion that the chief task of the

Social-Democratic opposition at the present moment is to raise the banner

of revolutionary Marxism, to tell the workers firmly and definitely how we

regard imperialist wars, to issue the watchword of mass revolutionary

action, i.e., transform the epoch of imperialist wars into the beginning of

the epoch of civil wars.

Inspite of everything, there are revolutionary Social-Democratic

elements in many countries. They are to be found in Germany, and in Russia,

and in Scandinavia (the influential trend of which Comrade Höglund is

the representative), and in the Balkans (the party of the Bulgarian “Tesnyaki,”[6])





and in Italy, and in England (a section of the

British Socialist

Party),[7]and in France (Vaillant himself has admitted inL’Humanitéthat he has received letters of

protest from internationalists, but he has not published one of them in

full), and in Holland (theTribunists),[8]etc. To

rally these Marxist elements—however small their numbers may be at

the beginning—to recall in their name the now forgotten words of

genuine Socialism, to call upon the workers of all countries to break with

the chauvinists and to come under the old banner of Marxism—such is

the task of the day.

Conferenceswith so-called programmes of “action” have

amounted up till now only to the proclamation, more or less fully, of the

programme of simple pacifism. Marxism is not pacifism. It is necessary, of

course, to fight for the speediest termination of the war. But only if arevolutionarystruggle is called for does the demand for

“peace acquire proletarian meaning. Without a series of revolutions,

so-called democratic peace is a philistine utopia. The purpose of a real

programme of action would be served only by aMarxianprogramme,

which gave the masses a full and clear explanation of what has occurred,

which explained what imperialism is and how to combat it, which openly

stated that it was opportunism that led to the collapse of the Second

International, which openly called for the building of a Marxist

International without andagainstthe opportunists. Only such a

programme as would show that we have confidence in ourselves, confidence in

Marxism, that we proclaim a life-and-death struggle against opportunism

would sooner or later ensure for us the sympathy of the genuine proletarian

masses.

The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and the Third

International

TheRussian Social-Democratic Labour Party split away from

its opportunists long ago. The Russian opportunists have now, in addition,

become chauvinists. This only strengthens our opinion that a split from

them in the interests of Socialism is essential. We are convinced that the

Social-Democrats’ present disagreements with the social-chauvinists

are in no way less wide than the Socialists’ disagreements with the

Anarchists when the Social-Democrats split away from the latter. The

opportunist Monitor rightly said inPreussische

Jahrbücherthat the present unity was to the advantage of the

opportunists and the bourgeoisie because it compelled the Lefts to submit

to the chauvinists and prevents the workers from grasping the issue and

from forming their own genuinely workers’, genuinely socialist party.

We are most firmly convinced that in the present state of affairs, a split

from the opportunists and chauvinists is the primary duty of the

revolutionary—just as a split from the yellows, the anti-Semites,

the liberal workers’ unions, etc., was essential precisely in the

interests of the speediest enlightenment of the backward workers and of

drawing them into the ranks of the Social-Democratic Party.

Inour opinion, the Third International should be built on precisely

such a revolutionary basis. For our Party, thequestion as to whether it is

expedient to break with the social-chauvinists does not exist. Pot it, this

question has been irrevocably settled. The only question that exists for

our Party is whether this can be achieved in the nearest future on an

international scale.

Itis quite understandable that to bring about aninternationalMarxist organisation, there must be a readiness to form independent Marxist

parties indifferentcountries. Germany, being the country with

the oldest and strongest working-class movement, is of decisive importance.

The immediate future will show whether conditions have already ripened for

the formation of a new, Marxist International. If they have, our Party will

gladly join such a Third International that will be purged of opportunism

and chauvinism. If they have not, it will show that a more or less

prolonged evolution is needed for this purging. In that case, our Party

will be the extreme opposition within the old International—until a

base is formed in different countries for an international working

men’s association that stands on the basis of revolutionary

Marxism.

Wedo not, nor can we, know, what developments will take place in the

international arena within the next few years. But there is one thing we

know for certain, and of which we are unshakably convinced, namely, thatourParty, inourcountry, amongourproletariat, will work tirelessly in the above-mentioned direction, and by

all its daily activities will build up the Russian section of theMarxistInternational.

InRussia too we have no lack of avowed social-chauvinists and

“Centre” groups. These people will fight against the formation

of a Marxist International. We know that Plekhanov, in principle, stands on

the same ground as Südekum and is already stretching out a hand to

him. We know that the so-called “Organisation Committee” led by

Axelrod is preaching Kautskyism on Russian soil. In the guise of

working-class unity, these people are preaching unity with the opportunists

and, through them, with the bourgeoisie. But everything we know about the

present working-class movement in Russia fully convinces us that the

class-conscious proletariat in Russia will, as hitherto, remain withour Party.

[1]Thisrefers to

a conference of Italian and Swiss Socialists held in Lugano, Switzerland,

on September 27, 1914.—Ed.

[2]TheCopenhagen Conferenceof Socialists in neutral countries (Sweden,

Norway, Denmark and Holland) was held on January 17–18, 1915 for the

purpose of restoring the Second International. The conference resolved to

appeal, through the parliamentary representatives of the Socialist Parties

in the neutral countries, to their governments to act as intermediaries

between the belligerent powers and secure the cessation of the war.—Ed.

[3]TheInternational Socialist Women’s Conferenceon the attitude to be

taken towards the war was held in Berne, Switzerland, on March 26–28, 1915.

The conference was convened on the initiative of the women’s

organisations connected with the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. in

conjunction with Clara Zetkin, the leader of the international

women’s movement. Twenty-five delegates were present at the

conference, representing England, Germany, France, Holland, Switzerland,

Italy, Russia and Poland. Among the delegates from Russia were N.K.

Krupskaya and Inessa Armand.

Areport of the proceedings of the International

Socialist Women’s Conference was published as a supplement to the

newspaperSotsial-Demokrat, No. 42, of June 1, 1915.—Ed.

[4]TheInternational Socialist Youth Conferenceon the attitude to be taken

towards the war was held in Berne, Switzerland, on April 4-6, 1915.

Representatives were present from youth organisations of ten countries:

Russia, Norway, Holland, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, Italy,

Denmark and Sweden. The conference decided to celebrate International Youth

Day every year and elected an international Bureau of Socialist Youth

which, in conformity with the conference’s decision, began to publish

the magazineJugend-lnternationale(Youth International),

to which Lenin and Karl Liebknecht contributed.—Ed.

[5]TheIndependent Labour Partywas formed in 1893 under such leaders as

James Keir Hardie and Ramsay MacDonald. It claimed to be politically

independent of the bourgeois parties; actually it was “independent of

Socialism, but dependent upon liberalism” (Lenin). At the beginning

of the imperialist world war (1914–18) the Independent Labour Party issued

a manifesto against the war on August 13, 1914, but later, at the London

Conference of Entente Socialists in February 1915, its representatives

supported the social-chauvinist resolution adopted by that conference. From

that time onward, the I.L.P. leaders, under cover of pacifist phrases,

adopted a social-chauvinist position. With the formation of the Communist

International in 1919, the I.L.P. leaders, yielding to the pressure of the

rank and file, which had swung to the left, resolved to withdraw from the

Second International. In 1921, the I.L.P. joined the so-called

Two-and-a-Half International, and after its collapse re-affiliated to the

Second International.—Ed.

[6]Tesnyaki—the revolutionary Social-Democratic Labour Party

of Bulgaria, was formed in 1903 after a breakaway from the

Social-Democratic Party. Dimitr Blagoyev, founder and leader of the

Tesnyaki, was succeeded by his followers Georgi Dimitrov and Vasil Kolarov.

During 1914–18, the Tesnyaki opposed the imperialist war. In 1919 it

affiliated to the Communist International and formed the Communist Party of

Bulgaria.—Ed.

[7]TheBritish Socialist Partywas formed in 1911. It conducted Marxist

propaganda and agitation and was described by Lenin as “not

opportunist,” and as “really independent of the

Liberals.” Its small membership and isolation from the masses lent

the party a somewhat sectarian character.

Duringthe imperialist world war (1914–18), two trends

were revealed in the party: one openly social-chauvinist, headed by Henry

Hyndman, and the other internationalist, headed by Albert Inkpin and

others. In April 1916 a split took place. Hyndman and his supporters found

themselves in the minority and withdrew from the party. From that moment

the internationalists assumed the leadership of the British Socialist

Party, which later initiated the formation of the Communist Party of Great

Britain in 1920.—Ed.

[8]TheTribunists—a Left group in the Social-Democratic Labour Party

of Holland which in 1907 published the newspaperDe

Tribune. In 1909, the Tribunists were expelled from the

Social-Democratic Labour Party of Holland and organised an independent

party (the Social-Democratic Party of Holland). The Tribunists were not a

consistently revolutionary party, but they represented the Left wing of the

working-class movement of Holland.

In1918 the Tribunists formed the Communist Party of

Holland. From 1909,De Tribunewas the organ of the

Social-Democratic Party of Holland, and from 1918 it was the organ of the

Communist Party. From the beginning of the 30s to 1940 it came out under

the title ofFolksdagblad(The People’s Daily).—Ed.

Updated:   March 30, 2005